Yeah, that’s why I think ben.smith’s comment in the same thread here is important. Handling the fallout well requires nuance and some additional degree of self-reflection on the part of EA leaders. (I say “some additional degree” because it’s not like people were completely unaware of these risks – see here.) And I think it would be wrong (and too easy) to see Sam as some kind of cartoon villain. It strongly looks as though some actions were far away from “defensible” but I don’t for a second doubt that his motivation to do good was sincere, and he got impressively far with it and you can understand how he might have felt increasingly more empowered to act in naive-consequentialist ways after seeing all that success.
(Edit: To be clear, “understand” isn’t the same as condone; with enough effort you can maybe also “understand” why the Taliban flew a plane into a building, etc.)
Yeah, that’s why I think ben.smith’s comment in the same thread here is important. Handling the fallout well requires nuance and some additional degree of self-reflection on the part of EA leaders. (I say “some additional degree” because it’s not like people were completely unaware of these risks – see here.) And I think it would be wrong (and too easy) to see Sam as some kind of cartoon villain. It strongly looks as though some actions were far away from “defensible” but I don’t for a second doubt that his motivation to do good was sincere, and he got impressively far with it and you can understand how he might have felt increasingly more empowered to act in naive-consequentialist ways after seeing all that success.
(Edit: To be clear, “understand” isn’t the same as condone; with enough effort you can maybe also “understand” why the Taliban flew a plane into a building, etc.)